Missouri has 3, count them THREE Cannabis Initiatives on the Ballot…And other things

30 Oct 2018 10 Comments

by truthfarmer in Cannabis, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, No Food Rights, Privacy, Uncategorized Tags: , ,

So, in just a couple of days, Missouri will definitely pass some kind of initiative on cannabis. Marijuana for those who are unfamiliar with the history of the term.

Just an fyi for those who don’t know; the entire propaganda piece of “reefer madness” was predicated upon conflating racial issues with terminology. Everyone knew what “hemp” and cannabis were, but applying the idiomatic Mexican phrase of “marijuana” to the plant enabled the people pushing to keep cannabis from being used for health, wealth, and national security,  into a position of control over the dialogue.

Rest assured, not one of these initiatives will do anything to enable people to get “high” without the potential of legal  and severe monetary consequences.

Edited to add, that if anyone in my household were to come down with cancer, we would leaving Missouri and going to Colorado to begin treatments. And I know of several parents with children having leukemia and seizures who have had to leave Missouri to treat their child with effective types and applications of cannabis. It’s very, very sad that not one of these proposals will allow people to take control of their own health and the health of their loved ones. It’s actually heart breaking.

The initiative getting the largest amount of “airtime” is the biggest pile of manure that pretends to be helpful and will harm, hamper and probably actually cause loss of life. That is Amendment 3. It is being put forth by “Doctor and Lawyer: Brad Bradshaw. ” Notably, this amendment allows for a less than certain dosage to be available for people dying from cancer as the maximum allowable amount of cannabis. Again, for people who haven’t studied it out, to cure cancer, a person needs to have a POUND of flower reduced to oil in a month. Not the 3 ounces per month allowed by Amendment 3. It’s enough to make a person feel better without being able to actually heal them of the problem. In simple terms, enough to keep you happily sick and under the care of an industry that is not interested in curing you.

Just take a minute and think of all the people you know who have been diagnosed with cancer…Then take a moment to think about those you have lost to cancer. Is a “Constitutional amendment” that prevents you from doing what is right, normal and caring, worth sacrificing nearly all future cannabis patients over? You “can” if you you have successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops set up by this 49 page amendment to the Missouri Constitution…AND if it is one of the ten of 700 to 1000 diseases deemed by the amendment to have been successfully treated by cannabis.

Actually, I don’t think anything more evil than Amendment 3 has been put forward as a “positive” solution for the well being of citizens ever. In any State. And even more repugnant, Amendment 3 pretends to give Missourians a payment to accept the unnecessary death or disability of their loved ones.

Sorry, but as a person who used to think that cannabis just helped people who were suffering from cancer “feel better” and then having become more thoroughly educated, I can’t see how it is even remotely beneficial to “allow” via a 49 page Constitutional Amendment, the right to be able to feel better while you die. Or for me, and most people, while your loved one dies an unnecessary death.  Because the Constitutional Amendment will not allow you to access a therapeutic dose. It will allow you to feel better…NOT to be healed. Yes, a pound is an awful lot, but to cure cancer, that’s what it takes. Maybe even a couple of pounds.

Oh, and a fifteen percent tax to anyone allowed to purchase cannabis from a licensed dispensary from licensed growers, AFTER they have exhausted all pharmaceutical potentials, which usually fail in 7 years time, will be used to set up and pay an “advisory” board to continue to “think about and study” uses for a plant that the Creator put here for our healing!!!

Disgust doesn’t begin to summarize my thoughts on Amendment 3. Nothing could be more repugnant to those who value life than this almost 50 page monstrosity that will be up for a vote on November 6, 2018. So…You decide. Is $10 a year back worth the death of someone you love? There’s Amendment 3. Killing people softly while pretending to do good.

Amendment 2 is much less heinous than Amendment 3. But it still does many of the same things. It does allow for home grow, IF you have exhausted all pharmaceutical efforts and have one of the 10 conditions set forth…10. Out of at least 1,000 conditions positively treated via documented studies. 0ne tenth of health issues are actually ensconced in the Missouri Constitution by this amendment. Read that properly…Point .1000000 of conditions treated by studies.

In it’s favor, Amendment 2 is only 14 pages long. And it commits 4% of tax revenue from the allowable cannabis sales to go to Veteran’s Services. But the impediments to treatment have the same exhaustive and time sensitive issues as does Amendment 3.  It also does not decriminalize cannabis, but qualifies some usage, and allows for 4 plants to be grown by those dying from the denial of effective treatment by cannabis.

Then there is the issue that both Amendment 2 and Amendment 3 could both pass as they are allowed to pass both at once. So then we have 2 Constitutional Amendments that conflict with each other, both of which inhibit individual access and personal accountability, ensconced in the Constitution only to be reconciled in court.

Just want to point out that the reconciliation itself can take 5 years. How many people lose their lives in that time frame?

Too many.

Entirely too many.

Then there is Prop C.

This is NOT a permanent amendment, so easier to change, but it isn’t without issues.  The biggest positive is that it is not a permanent amendment to the Constitution. And that has issues as well. It does nothing to guarantee the rights endowed by the Creator to His creation the right to access herbs He said were good. It does allow for the treatment of 10 diseases, out of thousands. And it presents less difficult hoops to jump through for people literally dying from lack of the Nutraceuticals available in cannabis. 10 diseases of thousands with peer reviewed studies. Thousands, mind you.

So, if you know someone with Lyme disease, or diabetes, they can’t have this. Not under the “laws” prescribed by the initiatives.

From where I am sitting, as a person who has actually studied out cannabis and who has ZERO benefit in the continued prohibition or qualified access to this plant, I have to dice it this way. A “law” even though it is insufficient, is easier to fix than a Constitutional Amendment.

So I am against all of the initiatives. Why? Because every single one of them removes your ability to take care of yourself and places that primary human right directly into the hands of regulators and “lawmakers”.

And I am pro cannabis. By default, I am also pro people and pro life. Politically, the Federal government will have no choice but to deschedule cannabis completely within the next year or two. And I am not for people getting stoned and driving or giving cannabis to kids for any purpose other than medical reasons. I do believe that adults should have the right to enjoy it in the privacy of their own homes for recreational purposes.

Too many have heard of and witnessed the positive effects of Rick Simpson Oil. Too many have seen the positive life enhancements and positive environmental effects..”What IF Cannabis Cured Cancer?” And of course, What we could do with Hemp!”

People fail to comprehend that cannabis sativa is actually…Hemp…It also will get you high, but not as what we describe as “hemp”.

It is better to wait for righteousness than to agree to tyranny because we fail to trust in the truth. Missouri is better off holding to the Truth and waiting for the truth to prevail than to assent to severely constricted rights to eat something as helpful as echinacea.

Hemp seed, the flowers of which are not capable of intoxicating anyone, but are a perfect fatty acid food. Hemp seed itself can heal heart disease (actual) and high cholesterol (really made up since the discovery that statins)  plus, they taste good.

Anyway, it seems clear that Missouri will do something on medical cannabis. What we do…may be entirely up to you.

All three of these measures could pass. And that would guarantee a couple of years in court at minimum.

They all require greater than 55% to be considered “pass” and they are all single line issues.For example, Amendment 3 gets a “pass” at 55% of vote, and Amendment 2 gets “pass” at 55% of vote. Then Prop C gets “pass” at 55%…and 2 Constitutional Amendments and a law are in conflict.

In the interim, maybe it’s your child…or maybe your spouse?… that dies because things weren’t clear in all the conflicting statutes and amendments.

That is beyond unjust. You “have the right to try”…QUALIFIER>>> if you have exhausted all pharmaceutical attempts at reconciling your problem.

So, Missouri could have 2 Constitutional Amendments that conflict with each other pass on the ballot;  along with a law that conflicts. It’s a perfect storm of confusion.

From my point of view, it’s better to have no law than to have a bad law that needs to be corrected. Having participated in the attempt to get good and positive legislation passed to thwart a regulatory approach that was and IS harmful…It’s better to have nothing than to have “something” just because. To me, a Constitutional amendment regarding cannabis shouldn’t try to regulate via the Constitution. It should just make it free and legal and courts and legislatures could weigh in appropriately at the point of commerce.

Here are several less opinionated articles on the subject. Bottom line is that YOU have to decide.  For me, I am voting “no” on all of them. But only once..:)

https://www.civilized.life/articles/missouris-3-competing-medical-marijuana-ballots/

https://info.umkc.edu/unews/three-missouri-ballot-initiatives-aim-to-legalize-medical-marijuana/

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2018/08/03/missouri-has-three-marijuana-initiatives-on-the-2018-ballot-heres-the-breakdown

Your thoughts are always welcome…

If you do nothing nothing else, please watch “Run from the Cure” which is the story of healing pioneer Rick Simpson and his rediscovery of the healing properties of cannabis oil.

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Ft Worth Fining Dairy Outside it’s Jurisdiction $3,000…Enough, Already

14 Dec 2015 6 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Dairy, farm loss, FDA, Milk Persecutions, No Food Rights, raw milk Tags: , , ,

There is so much wrong with the story below. However, it is important that people are aware of it, and even more important that you begin to work on things to provide yourself and your family and neighbors with real food.

When any bureaucrat believes that he can insinuate himself between anyone’s mouth and stomach, you have overreach of incredible proportions. This is the FDA Food Code in effect. This is the result of people allowing the government to control areas of their lives that the government has zero business involving itself in. The Food Safety Modernization Act is going to kill those who worked on “exempting” themselves from the regulations by staying small and local. You still have to apply for an exemption, which gives the tyrants the authority to control you.

The answer is that we must not ask permission. We must deal directly with each other and not allow these tyrants entry into the very thing that sustains us. Heck, if the FDA had things their way, we’d all be eating Soylent Green and other dead food and paying the big pharma, big chemical companies for more medications to address our symptoms that then cause more problems requiring more medications to address the symptoms….and voila! Captive supply for death merchants.

I guess you can tell this makes me rather angry. If it doesn’t make you angry, I submit that you are part of the problem.

Currently, after more than a decade of fighting against this exact type of tyranny, I am dedicating myself to doing many of the projects that I have put off trying to defend against the wholesale onslaught against real food by the global govicorp. I must do all I can to feed my family and provide for my neighbors. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Here is the article:

City of Fort Worth Levies $3,000 Fine to Raw Milk Dairy, Located Outside of City Limits

FORT WORTH TX  –  Eldon Hoolely, who runs a small, family operated dairy farm is being summoned to court on Monday after some of their raw milk product was found inside the city limits of Fort Worth.  The City of Fort Worth is now claiming that Rosey Ridge Farms, which is located nearly 40 miles south of city limits has somehow committed $3,000 worth of city ordinance violations.

Elmer DePaula, a health superintendent for the city claims that Rosey Ridge Farms was operating an illegal food establishment within the city limits.  When in actuality, a food cooperative was purchasing the raw milk and transporting the product back to Fort Worth to distribute to it’s members.

Hoolely is licensed to sell his raw dairy products out of Rosey Ridge Farm, and says he’s being targeted as if he was running an establishment in Fort Worth itself.

“I never delivered anything to Fort Worth, when it leaves the farm, it’s bought and paid for, and in the hands of the consumer,” he said.  “We run a very clean, raw milk operation, and people are really wanting to get back to real food again.”

Once the raw milk leaves Hooley’s farm, he has no operational control as to where the product ends up.

From their website: “Rosey Ridge Farm is located 2 ½ miles off I-35W approximately 35 miles south of Fort Worth. We are a fully licensed and inspected Grade A Retail Raw Dairy with a Food Manufacturing Permit for other dairy products, including Raw Aged Cheese from our dairy. All Natural grazing is practiced for our cows and calves. We do not feed any GMO grain and unless we have a dry year with poor quality feed, do not feed any grain. The farm consists of a 35 cow dairy of Jersey and Jersey Brown Swiss cross cows that are well fed and cared for and milked twice a day. Pigs and chickens are fed whey from the cheese and leftover milk by-products. Our chickens are cage free and roam freely over fields after the cows and calves and lay very nutritious eggs. We do not use antibiotics, hormones, or steroids in our dairy. We farm around 250 acres for grazing and hay. Oats and wheat is planted in the fall for winter grazing while native and forage grasses are grazed in warm weather.

 Please come by and see us! Enjoy the country life and be a part of wholesome community building at the farm. Bring your children and let them pet the animals and enjoy a horse ride. If you come in the late afternoon, you can get in on the milking. For groups, please have us schedule an event for you.”

So now their family is in jeopardy of losing  $3,000 of their hard earned income to unjust fines placed upon them. The charges are that they distributed  some “unfit” food, and are operating an illegal food establishment.

Recently the ordinance was updated and passed by the Fort Worth City Council to ensure raw milk was specifically mentioned, “… it is the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products which is prohibited, regardless of retail status.”

Attorney Bryce King and Gary Cox from the Farmer to Consumer Legal Defense Fund  are representing the family against the city backed prosecutor Bill Durkin.

Real Milk Texas have expanded their popularity and are raising awareness about the health benefits and chemical free raw dairy products.

The growing movement of the people to make their own food choices is being stifled by the federal, local and state governments with their concerns about public health.  Mr. Hooley told brettsanders.me that

 “It’s not about acting against the government, it’s about the government overreaching and telling us what foods we can and cannot eat”. He shared this Thomas Jefferson quote with me “If the people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny”.

Hooley concluded with “Altering nature is not the answer, and that healthy unpasturized milk and farm fresh chemical free foods is the closest thing to nature for our health and well being, and the government needs to keep their hands off our food “.

He and his Family are asking for help by showing up at the courthouse on Monday morning in downtown Fort Worth to support his and other small farms around the country in bringing the ‘farm to table’ concept the forefront.   Here is the link to the event.

 

One More Reason to Grow Your Own and Come out the Killer Controlled Food System

01 Dec 2015 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Animal Welfare, Conspiracy, Disease, FDA, food, Food Destruction Agency, food safety, No Food Rights

FDA approves controversial drug to beef up farm animals despite being reported as the most dangerous livestock drug on market and being banned in 150 countries

Submitted by IWB, on November 30th, 2015

by: Jennifer Lea Reynolds

FDA

(NaturalNews) If it’s been deemed bad in other countries, that’s often when the United States comes in and welcomes it with open arms. In this case, we’re talking about the fact that a California judge recently dismissed two lawsuits that claimed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) illegally approved a harmful drug additive – ractopamine hydrochloride – used in animal feed.(1)

Indeed, despite having information about the weight gain inducing drug’s detrimental effects on animals, and that the active ingredient, found in the brand Paylean, is banned in 150 countries, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers turned a blind eye.(1)

FDA records revealed that pigs in particular have suffered horrific consequences from being given the drug, which is designed to make them gain weight without having to consume a great deal of feed. While cost effective for the farming industry, it’s been found to have rendered 160,000 pigs unable to walk, to experience hyperactivity and broken limbs, and even to die.(1)

In fact, a Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) investigation determined that ractopamine is fed to “an estimated 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the United States” and has “resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market.” Over the years, farmers and veterinarians have repeatedly expressed concern over ailing pigs.(1)

Still, the judge feels it’s appropriate to dismiss the lawsuits while these horrors continue to unfold.

Judge’s unbelievable reason for dismissing lawsuits

A portion of the judge’s explanation for the motion to dismiss reads as follows:

Due to statutory and regulatory requirements that applications to FDA for new drugs remain confidential… plaintiffs only became aware of the approvals, and FDA’s associated decision-making, when they were final and published in the Federal Register… Thus, plaintiffs were not able to participate in the administrative process prior to the FDA approvals at issue… Central to defendant-intervenor’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs do not allege that they pursued any administrative remedies with the FDA relating to their NEPA grievances following the FDA approvals.(2)

So there you have it. The FDA is protected by secrecy, able to approve harmful drugs under a cloak of application confidentiality, knowing full well that participation in approval processes is limited. Not everyone is in on it, of course, especially those who the FDA knows would be likely take issue and dare to ask questions.

Organizations who take issue with this additive include the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club, the United Farmworkers of America and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, all of whom – along with others – originally filed the suit in 2014. They maintained that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act when the animal feed additive containing ractopamine hydrochloride was approved. They are also adamant that the FDA did not properly test the feed additive, which is manufactured by Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly.(1)

What this means for you

What does this mean for your food and for those who advocate the humane treatment of animals? It means that animals will continue to be given drugs that severely compromise their health. They are dying, trembling and living in a constant state of fear.

It also means that the food you eat involves an additive – ractopamine hydrochloride – which has actually been deemed “not for human use,” yet has turned up in tested meat samples. This doesn’t just pertain to pigs, either; it’s been found that ractopamine is fed to turkeys and cattle as well.(3)

If this has you shaking your head in disbelief and disgust, it should. Once again, greed enters the picture – one that’s well-framed by loopholes and hush-hush regulatory processes.

Idiots Rule

19 Nov 2013 2 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Control, food safety, food shortage, No Food Rights

As delineated in the article below, this kind of thing is happening all over. Fines for producing. If you want good food, you have to grow it or buy it directly from someone who grows it for you. You must avoid the anonymous centralized, consolidated food supply chain….IF you want real stuff anyway. We have some very interesting ties ahead with the Food Safety Modernization Act’s rules being under consideration.

At any rate, the following article covers some of the gardening atrocities occurring around the country, but there are many more not being mentioned. This is a good primer for what is coming under the International Property Maintenance Codes along with the FSMA.

Pure manure: City uproots FL couple’s 17-year-old garden

TALLAHASSEE,  Fla. – Few things in life are as benign as a home vegetable garden.

courtesy of Institute for Justice

But for the residents of Miami Shores, Fla., growing veggies can land you a fine — the type you eventually can’t afford.

That’s what happened to Hermine Ricketts and her husband, Tom Carroll. For the past 17 years they’ve grown a garden in the front yard of their modest South Florida home. The backyard, they say, doesn’t get enough sunlight.

But in May, the city put the couple’s garden, and any others like it, in their legal crosshairs.

A new zoning ordinance designed to “protect the distinctive character of the Miami Shores Village,” was enacted and specifically prohibited vegetables – not fruit, trees or even plastic flamingos – from appearing in front yards.

Shortly after, the couple received a visit from their local code enforcement officer. They were given two choices: Uproot the garden or pay a $50 per day fine to keep it.

After twice appearing before the Miami Shores Code Enforcement Board and being denied an exemption, the couple decided to dig up the garden rather than fork over $1,500 a month to the city.

Now they’re taking their case to court.

In an effort to reinstate the couple’s right to grow a few vegetables on their own property, the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian leaning legal aid group, filed a lawsuit Tuesday on their behalf.

ARI BARGIL, Institute for Justice

“We’re not suing for money,” IJ attorney Ari Bargil told Florida Watchdog. “We’re asking the court to rule that this law is unconstitutional so Hermine and Tom can plant their garden again.”

According to Bargil, the ordinance infringes on the couple’s basic right to privacy – a right the Florida Constitution recognizes more broadly than the U.S. Constitution.

“Miami Shores will have to prove that its ban promotes a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to advance that interest,” wrote Bargil in a litigation backgrounder.

For its part, the city has yet to explain any interest beyond the language of the law itself.

Similar bans have taken root in other parts of the country. Ron Finely of South Los Angeles and Adam Guerro of Memphis were found in violation of city gardening ordinances, though they eventually prevailed.

But Denise Morrison of Tulsa, Okla., wasn’t so lucky. Her edible garden was largely destroyed by local authorities while she waited for her day in court. Julie Bass of Oak Park, Mich,. faced 90-days in jail for her home-grown veggies. The charges were eventually dropped.

Such rules are usually rooted in maintaining the aesthetic value of a neighborhood. Other residents have every right to complain — though that was not the case in Miami Shores — or local authorities can make a determination themselves.

The problem, however, is when a homeowner reasonably disagrees with city officials on what is considered visually “suitable.” Throw in the productive use of growing food on one’s own property, and such restrictions can come across as arbitrary and subjective.

While the Florida case may seem to be small-potatoes to those that don’t grow and eat their own food, Bargil offers a simple warning.

“If the government can tell you what you can and can’t do in your front yard, what else can they decide is off-limits?”

Raw Milk is Not Local Food???

14 May 2013 3 Comments

by truthfarmer in food, No Food Rights, raw milk Tags: , , , , ,

A few years ago, the State of Maine passed several local food freedom ordinances and I was very excited by their success and commitment. Although there was a little problem with their ordinances, they were mostly very positive, and with Maine’s “home rule” authority, it looked like there might be hope in this type of action. First of all, it was local, and local seems to be one type of politics we can actually have a positive effect on. Well guess what? Apparently even if we get our freedom to choose our own food into statute or ordinance, it’s irrelevant to the the courts and the federally controlled State governments.

In Maine, the State went after a giant dairy farmer, Dan Brown, who milked one or two cows and sold his milk locally. Here’s the outcome from Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund:

Dan Brown Hearing in Maine Food Sovereignty Case: Judge Finds Raw Milk Not a ‘Local Food’

by admin on May 7, 2013

This is a rewrite of the April 30th original and the May 4th revision. More about the Case

DBrown--IMG_3920In an incredible decision rendered on May 1st, the Hancock County Superior Court ruled against farmer Dan Brown on his motion for summary judgment. The Court instead granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Maine and issued an injunction enjoining Mr. Brown from selling raw milk and other food products from his farm stand.

The State had alleged that Dan was (1) selling raw milk without being in possession of a milk distributor’s license, (2) selling raw milk without having the necessary warning label, and (3) selling other foods prepared in his home kitchen without being in possession of a retail food license. Dan had argued that for over 30 years the Department of Agriculture had a policy of allowing small, unlicensed milk producers like him sell raw milk from their farm as long as they did not advertise or solicit the sale. He also argued that the Town of Blue Hill, Maine’s local ordinance exempted him from licensing requirements. Dan was represented by General Counsel Gary Cox and his Ellsworth, Maine co-counsel Sandy Collier who argued the case on his behalf.

Blue Hill’s local ordinance provides, in part, that local food produced by a farmer and sold to a consumer for home consumption need not be licensed or inspected. The Court, however, concluded that “nothing in the Blue Hill ordinance clearly states that the town intended to include milk within the definition of local food.” What’s clear is that the judge disregarded the definitions section of the Blue Hill Ordinance:

(c) “Local Foods ” means any food or food product that is grown, produced, or processed by individuals who sell directly to their patrons through farm-based sales or buying clubs, at farmers markets, roadside stands, fundraisers or at community social events.

(d) “Processor ” means any individual who processes or prepares products of the soil or animals for food or drink.

(e) “Producer ” means any farmer or gardener who grows any plant or animalfor food or drink.

DBrown--IMG_3929_2
FTCLDF member Dan Brown flanked by Attorneys
Gary Cox and Sandy Collier

Dan’s case has been described as a test case in Maine, a state where several local food sovereignty ordinances have been passed in an effort to allow local control over the production, distribution and consumption of local foods. Unfortunately, the Court’s ruling is another example of why the public citizenry loses faith in government when it cannot obtain redress from the judicial system and why more farmers and consumers are resorting to civil disobedience as a means of asserting their rights.

A penalty hearing has been set for May 16th at 9:00 am. At that time the court will determine the appropriate amount of civil penalty to be imposed for the violations alleged in the State’s complaint.

Now, This Would Be A Good Constitutional Amendment for Missouri

07 Mar 2013 6 Comments

by truthfarmer in Control, Dairy, Enforcement, food shortage, GMO's, No Food Rights, raw milk Tags: , , , , ,

Recently, I wrote about Jason Smith’s HJR 7 and 11,which is a proposed Constitutional Amendment for the State of Missouri. By the way, Jason is the Pro Tem in the Missouri House and the Republican nominee to fill Joann Emerson’s seat in the US Congress. It is widely rumored that Smith was flown to Washington four times to be introduced to his future colleagues by Emerson. It is possibly coincidence one of Emerson’s daughters is a lobbyist for Monsanto and that Smith introduced this bill, which would strongly enhance Monsanto’s stranglehold on Agriculture in this State. Possibly. I just don’t know. It’s one of those thing that makes you go, “Hmmm…”, as that old adage goes.

What isn’t questionable is that HJR 7 and 11 and SJR 22 (it’s companion) are flying through the process at Jeff City quicker than a greased pig. And is NOT good for Missouri farmers, Missouri consumers, or economic freedom overall. Please read my first article on this legislation here to get some background on why I see this as terrifically dangerous and deceptive as I do.

An interesting thing about Missouri is the many options available for changing/amending the Missouri Constitution. Battles in ballot language are often fought in the back rooms of the State Offices and voters must go to extensive lengths to find out the full text of the actual proposal on the ballot. When people are voting on a Constitutional Amendment, they should not only be allowed easy access to the language, they should read it and be certain they understand the effects of the proposed amendment. We want the legislators to “read the bills”, why would we be satisfied with out own decisions on issues if we ourselves don’t read the actual text?

After two calls and a facebook message to Rep. Smith, I finally received a return call from Smith’s office, but I was outside dealing in the real world at the time.  I called back and left another message, but haven’t yet heard back from the staffer that left a message on my machine. Sigh.

Since this thing is moving so quickly, and the questionable terms “modern” and “agricultural technology” show no signs of being removed from the language, it seems that the public should have the opportunity to look at potential substitute language that would actually be beneficial for farmers, ranchers and consumers as well as the Missouri economy.

I spent quite a bit of time looking at the language and thinking it was completely hopeless. Then it clicked. A light came on and I found language that I have shared with a few traditional farming advocates and some other concerned groups and they all said they would definitely support this language.

For your consideration and comments, I submit a truly helpful and freedom enhancing substitute for Smith’s HJR 7 & 11: (the things in brackets and struck through are removed from the language of Smith’s bill-the bold italicized is inserted instead)

Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in direct trade with consumers [modern farming and ranching practices] shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural [technology and modern livestock production and ranching] practices that secure independent family farm’s ability to save seed, preserve livestock bloodlines, or impede their access to market.

Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the 3 submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows: “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure: 

• That the right of Missouri citizens to employ modern farming and ranching practices and equipment that insure the continuance of diversified small farms shall not be infringed”.

So what do you think? Is it too radical to think that people should have the ability to purchase their food from sources that they want? Do corporations and governments acting in the best interests of those corporations increase our freedom and improve our general health? In short, are people too stupid to decide what they want to eat?

 A  personal note for my friends and readers:

Put this in the whining column, my computer died on me. I amattempting to deal with my husband’s dinosaur that -for no apparent reason- decides to take you to links on pages of articles without clicking on them, starts to type in the middle of preceding paragraphs at will, and will only run one program at a time. I am waiting for a new hard drive, while praying that it isn’t the logic board on my computer that is fried. I have ten years of research in Mac format backed up, but when these Macs decide to quit on you, it is rather expensive to fix them and sometimes downright impossible to get funds together to do do it. Grrr. So if you ever wanted to donate anything to help me keep the alligators at bay, now would be a great time!

You Will Eat What We Say You Will Eat…And you will enjoy it

10 Jun 2010 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Dairy, Enforcement, farm loss, FDA, food, No Food Rights, Right to Contract

This is the wave of the future, folks. You won’t be able to get food without receiving permission and farmers won’t grow it without being licensed, certified, audited and inspected. The FDA says we have no right to any particular food for ourselves or our children, that we have no right to bodily or physical health through our food choices, and that we have no right to contract. They also say that they are carrying out their public health mission within those assertions. This article  shows the state equivalent of the FDA at work in Wisconsin.

FTCLDF has screwed up a number of cases…and there are serious concerns on my part about many of their methods– but Pete Kennedy has been true, and the following article is written by him.

From the Socialist Democratic Republic of Wisconsin:

Wisconsin: DATCP Raids Hershberger Farm
BY PETE KENNEDY, ESQ.  | JUNE 8, 2010

The morning of June 2, 2010 started out like most other busy days on the farm of Vernon & Erma Hershberger and their family of eight boys and one girl, ranging in age from 18 down to 2 years. Shortly before 10:00 a.m., Vernon went to pick up some equipment from a neighboring farm.  Immediately after he left, Cathleen Anderson, Regulatory Specialist from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) along with Sauk County Health Department Sanitarians, Nick Oasen and Mitch Lohr, arrived and entered the farm store building, paying no heed to “Private Property” signs posted on the building.  Erma immediately called Vernon on his cell phone; and she asked the officials to wait for him outside the building, which they did, stepping out into the parking lot.

Vernon refused consent even after they threatened to get a warrant, explaining to the officials that they had no jurisdiction to inspect his farm because he had not applied for a license and he was not selling to the public but merely distri-buting products to members of his private buying club.

Upon arriving at the scene, Vernon was asked by Anderson for his consent to let them do an inspection of his private facility.  Vernon refused consent even after they threatened to get a warrant, explaining to the officials that they had no jurisdiction to inspect his farm because he had not applied for a license and he was not selling to the public but merely distributing products to members of his private buying club.

At 11:45a.m. Jacqueline Owens, Field Service Director from DATCP, showed up with a warrant along with four or five deputies from the local Sherriff’s Department.  Anderson handed Vernon the warrant; Vernon requested a few minutes to look it over which they granted, but when he asked them to wait until he had called his attorney they refused saying that the warrant was valid and they would wait no longer. They then entered the farm store building.

They began the inspection in the storage freezers in what is call the “processing room” and took
inventory of all the items that were in the freezers, also making notes about labels and temperatures.  They did a total inspection of the building including the restroom facilities, the lighting, and anything else that they would typically inspect in a licensed facility.  After they were done in the processing room they went into the grocery storage room and then into the culturing room, taking a basic inventory of everything that was on the shelves. They then moved on into the walk-in cooler.

In the cooler, they wrote down every individual item name and lot number and any other information that they could find.  Next, they went into the store area where there were two chest freezers, a three-glass-door display freezer and approximately twenty feet of shelving.  After they had gone through the whole store, Oasen commented on the cleanliness of the building and processing equipment along with the overall appearance of the facility.

Vernon said he was shocked!  He had dealt with ‘cease and desist’ letters and even went through a long, drawn out lawsuit but nothing quite like this.

Anderson and Owens took a total of twelve samples of various products;  Vernon took a similar sample of each item.  When the sampling was done, Owens said, “Now comes the hard part.”  Owens went on to advise Vernon that they were going to tape shut all the chest freezers and put tags on the doors of the other coolers and freezers and that he would not be allowed to take anything off the shelves without  written approval from DATCP.  She told him the tags would be good for 14 days;  if things were not worked out between DATCP and the farm, the agency could extend them for another 14 days.  She ended saying that they would leave him some food for his family to eat but that everything else must stay intact on the shelves as it was then.

Vernon said he was shocked!  He had dealt with ‘cease and desist’ letters and even went through a long, drawn out lawsuit but nothing quite like this.  His head was going in circles:  How to make the mortgage payments? Would the inventory be left on the shelves to rot?

As all these things were going around in my head, I thought to myself:  As we head into the future we do not know what it holds but we know Who holds it and that’s what counts.

Just as if all that wasn’t enough, after the officials were done with the taping and sealing they headed for the milkhouse.   After taking samples, they gave Vernon a paper demanding that the milk in the bulk tank must be disposed of by dumping it out onto the fields.  In order to make sure that the milk could not even be used by Vernon’s family, they opened the lid and dumped in a large glop of blue dye.  By the time the officials left it was 5:00 p.m.

After the day’s chores were done, Vernon said, “I sat down and went into our business email and WOW!!  Fifty new messages–how’s that for some support?”  He then called the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund to ask a few questions.   He also talked with David Gumpert and then Ted Beals on some sample testing issues.  After looking over the emails, he tried to  get some sleep; it was close to 11:00 p.m.

In Vernon’s words:
Coming from an Amish background, we had been taught the biblical principles of non-resistance and loving and praying for our enemies and those who persecute us.  I slept only a few hours and meditated a long time, seeking the Lord and His will in these troubling circumstances.  What would Jesus do?  Bible passages like: “Blessed are you, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake”. (Matt. 5:11)  “But I say unto you, ‘Love your enemies, Bless them that curse you, do good to them which hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’.” (Matt. 5:44)  Also Psalms 37 has promises that we can claim for our own if we trust in him.

There is another phrase that is very powerful that I strongly believe in:  There’s no greater love that a man can have than to lay down his life for his friend.  If we become so passionate about something that we are willing to lay down our lives for it, there is a power that kicks in, which is beyond measure.  As all these things were going around in my head,  I thought to myself:  As we head into the future we do not know what it holds but we know Who holds it and that’s what counts.

Update
On June 8, Owens and Anderson returned to the farm without a warrant, attempting to conduct another inspection.  Vernon refused the request for inspection and the officials left his premises.  Before they left, they served Vernon a ‘Summary Special Order’ which would subject him to fines of up to $5,000 per violation if he is not in compliance with Wisconsin food and dairy law.

Patricia Barrett, Esq.
Sauk County District Attorney
Sauk County Court House
515 Oak Street
Baraboo, WI  53913Fax (608)355-3282

patricia.barrett@da.wi.gov

How You Can Help
DATCP has referred Vernon’s case to the Sauk County District Attorney, Patricia Barrett, for potential prosecution.  Everyone is urged to contact Barrett’s office and request that she not prosecute the Hershberger case.  Sauk County residents are especially encouraged to contact the District Attorney and inform her that you will not vote for her the next election if she pursues the Hershberger case.  The District Attorney has already taken so many calls on this case that they are no longer accepting them; but you can still contact the DA’s office by email, fax and/or postal mail.  Here is the contact information:

Here are some points to make:

  1. The County DA should not be spending taxpayer money, pursuing cases like this in which there is no victim or injury.  There has been no complaint filed by anyone against the Hershbergers.
  2. The only injury in a case like this occurs when the farmer or food distributor is prosecuted and consumers who were obtaining foods they deem best for their health and the health of their families have now lost their source of those foods.
  3. The right of consumers to obtain the foods of their choice from the source of their choice is a political issue; cases like this in which there has been no injury do not belong in the courts.  The County DA should exercise her discretion not to take on these cases.
  4. With the tough economic times and all the cutbacks in government spending, the County DA should not be using its remaining enforcement dollars pursuing victimless crimes.
  5. Let the County DA know how food direct from farms has benefitted your health and the health of your family.

DATCP does not respect freedom of food choice nor the right to be left alone.  The agency’s enforcement actions do not protect the public health; they only deny individuals the right to obtain the foods they believe best for their health and the health of their families.

Please help Vernon and Erma Hershberger.

It’s Official- The FDA Believes we Are Too Dumb to Eat

30 Apr 2010 8 Comments

by truthfarmer in FDA, No Food Rights, Right to Contract

©Doreen Hannes

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF- http://www.farmtoconsumer.org) has achieved a tremendous coup in their suit against the FDA regarding the FDA’s abuses over transport of privately owned fresh (unpasteurized) milk. In a brief the FDA filed requesting that the case against them be dismissed for lack of standing, the FDA has shown that they truly think we cannot decide what we want to eat or drink without their permission. It’s amazing. One would think that we could not have possibly lived prior to the formation of the FDA just over one hundred years ago.

The legal brief by the FDA actually has the audacity to proclaim in the table of contents such things as :

There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food (pg25)

There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health. (pg26)

There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract (pg 27)

FDA’s Regulations Rationally Advance The Agency’s Public Health Mission (pg27)

Let’s have a look at the first citation above… (emphasis added) beginning on page 25…

…… there is no “deeply rooted” historical tradition of unfettered access to
food of all kinds….To the contrary, society’s long history of food regulation stretches back to the dietary laws of biblical times…. Modern food safety regulation in the United States has its roots in the early food laws of the American colonies, which themselves incorporated “the tradition of food regulation established in England.” …(-citing a Virginia statute passed in 1873, that “made it an offense . . . [to] knowingly, sell, supply, or bring to be manufactured . . . milk from which any cream has been taken; or milk commonly known as skimmed milk”). Comprehensive federal regulation of the food supply has been in effect at least since Congress enacted the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, and was strengthened by the passage of the FDCA in 1938. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim to a fundamental privacy interest in obtaining “foods of their own choice” for themselves and their families is without merit.

If this weren’t so horribly serious it would be hilarious.

The FDA is fighting a case that builds on the desire and right to consume fresh (unpasteurized) milk, which the FDA maintains is a lethally dangerous practice, by citing a law that prohibits any change of the nature of fresh milk!

But wait, there’s more….we haven’t begun to scratch the surface yet:

There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health.

Plaintiffs’ assertion of a “fundamental right to their own bodily and physical
health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for
themselves and their families” is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish. (Emphasis added)

I almost can not believe they were so overt in their complete and total disregard for the most fundamental human right of all, yet their own words convict them. If you cannot decide what food you wish to eat, you certainly cannot even entertain the idea that you are free! The FDA has seemingly vaunted itself to the level of parenthood over the entire nation simply by being created via an act of Congress. Like a parent telling a four year old, “Eat it! It’s good for you!” Right…..Never mind the fact that the FDA has refused to do any real testing on genetically modified foods, or that they say aspartame is fine for you to drink when it becomes toxic at 85 degrees. Don’t even mention that they have refused to regulate nanofoods (smaller than a molecule technologic creations) that your body cannot assimilate. Yet since you don’t have any “generalized right to bodily and physical health” they can allow you to be poisoned with the continued blessing of Congress. And the likely passage of new powers to be given to the FDA will surely be helpful in giving us all “food safety” and healthful food. Right. Sorry, my sarcasm should be palpable.

According to the FDA, you don’t have a right to bodily and physical health by deciding what you want to eat or don’t want to eat. They know better than you, even better than God Almighty and don’t you forget it. Just wait until they have expanded powers under S510 and HR2749. They will almost certainly extrapolate that authority to do home refrigerator checks on whomever they want.

In their final sentence under this section of the FDA’s motion to dismiss, they really hit it out of the park:

Finally, even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes “bodily and physical health.”

So you don’t have a right to it and they are promoting your non-right by their illustrious actions……Please. There are a myriad of studies attesting to the healthful benefits of fresh milk. Yes, there are concerns associated with it as well, and people should do the best they can to become educated on the subject before making a decision for themselves, but this hyperbolic ‘public good’ claim is farcical at the least. Particularly when the FDA has so miserably failed in their charge to inspect processing facilities and imports. A recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report revealed that the FDA has inspected less than 25% of the facilities they are charged with inspecting in five years. They inspect LESS than 1% of imports and allow the aforementioned biotech and nanotech foods to enter the food supply without the slightest flinch on their part. All the while they proclaim they are performing a public good.

The final affront to all that is decent in this FDA legal brief follows:

There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract
In arguing that FDA’s regulations violate substantive due process because they
interfere with plaintiffs’ “contract rights” by “restricting the use of an agent to accomplish what the principal herself ought to be free to do,” plaintiffs ask this Court to resuscitate long-dead, Lochner-era jurisprudence. See Ferguson v. Skrupa,372 U.S. 726, 729 (1963) (“There was a time when the Due Process Clause was used by this Court to strike down laws which were thought . . . incompatible with some particular economic or social philosophy,” but that doctrine “has long since been discarded ). Plaintiffs anachronistic invitation should be rejected.

The excerpt above has deeper implications than one might realize at a glance. In my estimation it has a terrific amount to do with many of the obtuse rulings the state and federal courts have delivered. We are being told that we do not have the right to make agreements. Evidently, all agreements have been made for us by our superiors.

Historically, the only people without the right to contract are minors, felons and slaves. Obviously, we cannot be minors because we can never reach the age of majority wherein we are free to decide what we eat for ourselves. So we are either felons or slaves. Which category we have been relegated to is open for discussion, but we certainly are not free. To boldly state that we have no right to freedom of contract is an astonishing, and revealing, admission.

To boldly state any one of the cites above is astonishing. We have no right to decide what we eat or don’t eat, we have no right to bodily and physical health, we have no right to contract, and the FDA is ‘rational’. So saith the FDA…. in Case 5:10-cv-04018-MWB, Document 11-1 filed on 04/26/10.

The FDA believes that we are too stupid to swallow. Yet we are supposed to swallow that they are interested in securing a safe food supply for us, and that the FDA needs more power to regulate food on farms and we should give it to them by passing S510 or HR2749.

They’ll take care of us…you betcha.

=====================

This article should be on http://www.newswithviews.com and have the pdf of the FDA motion to dismiss attached. I will make certain it is accessible and post an update when it can be downloaded easily. Meanwhile, if anyone has any idea how to get pdfs loaded onto blogspot—PLEASE let me know!